Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?

Dear Eckard and Pentcho,

I meant to say -Its like Present-ism but concerned with the underlying foundational reality,....... Rather than 'conserved'.

Thinking on I do think it is necessary to have some doubt that what is observed is the external reality itself. Some experience of visual disturbance whether by drugs, medications, alcohol, or mental illness would aid clarity of thought regarding the status of the output of the human visual perception system. Though that doubt may be regarded as insanity by some it is in fact correct and sane clarity of thought. Whereas the general belief that what is seen is the external substantial reality itself, as if we have windows in our skull, is mass delusion. Richard Feynman was a very intelligent man and yet he trivialized the philosophical debate over whether you see only light or objects themselves. Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers. Which seems to have been a popular response with his audience, who no doubt share his unfortunate dismissive"sane"opinion.

Georgina,

It is unfortunate the comical statements of Richard Feynman on "When you are looking at something do you see only light or do you see the object?"

Can something be seen without light?

Can light be seen without something?

He (Richard) is always seeking to distort the truth. Seeing is just a sensory perception just as sound is. Moreover, in some electromagnetic spectrum light can be emitted by something and transmitted to the observer and yet nothing is seen (outside the visible spectrum). This does not imply the absence of an object.

Akinbo

I agree that sensation is a constant stream of neural impulses that are what informs us about the world.

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 17, 2015 @ 11:04 GMT "Moreover, in some electromagnetic spectrum light can be emitted by something and transmitted to the observer and yet nothing is seen (outside the visible spectrum). This does not imply the absence of an object."

However, we do not sense space and yet we are more sure about space and motion in space than we are about the objects and time delays that we actually do sense. As you said, some objects we do not see, but like a transparent window, we know a window by other sensation. All that we do sense are objects and their backgrounds and those neural impulses represent time delays.

Time delays as neural spikes from exchange of object matter fill sensation and are the most primitive form of time and space and motion emerge from these streams of neural spikes. A major flaw of relativity is in setting time as a mere coordinate of spacetime because in so doing, all motion becomes deterministic geodesic paths.

Hi Akinbo, Steve, All,

the question put to professor Feynman was a profound one. Another question might be: As we are receiving light emitted or reflected from objects, does alteration in the way the light is received alter the object itself? The correct response to which will help clarify that the barn pole type paradoxes are about manifestations (Image reality) not actualized objects (Object reality).

Re your questions Akinbo's Q1. "Can something be seen without light?" It depends on what you mean by 'things' and 'seen'. Light is needed to form visual representations of objects that are in external reality. However sound can also be used as by dolphins and bats and some blind humans.Visions and hallucinations that give the appearance of things that do not exist as objects in external reality can also occur. Not formed from data from the external environment but internally generated.

Re. Akinbo's Q2."Can light be seen without something?" Light can be seen without receiving it from the external environment. If the visual cortex is stimulated that can be sensed as sensations of light called phosphenes.Visual sensations produced by intracortical microstimulation of the human occipital cortex Lights associated with migraine and epileptic aura are also internaly generated. This is all fascinating to me and suggests that what we regard as light is usually the output of stimulation of the retina and thence the brain, not a quality of the carrier of the sensory data itself. The representation that is generated allows us to navigate, it provides illumination. Without processing the presence of external visible wavelength electromagnetism and objects reflecting it can not be seen.

It would probably be good for clarity in physics to refer to un-received light as (visible) EM and the visual sensation, the observation, as light. I used to reliably refer to external visible EM as 'EM' or 'em' but light is used by physicists in general parlance and so I have become less pedantic. However there is a significant difference. Visible EM in the external environment (Object reality) is not the sensation of light (Image reality). So I should acknowledge their belonging to different categories of reality by using the different names.

Steve re.your "However, we do not sense space and yet we are more sure about space and motion in space than we are about the objects and time delays that we actually do sense." I refer you to the below post, if you are looking at most recent first order- Anonymous replied on May. 17, 2015 @ 05:01 GMT addressed to Eckard and Pentcho which may possibly be of interest to you.

Hi Georgina,

In response to your inclusion of "all", while not wanting to interfere with the ongoing conversation, but, rather to place myself, for the record, in disagreement with "The correct response to which will help clarify that the barn pole type paradoxes are about manifestations (Image reality) not actualized objects (Object reality)." Length contraction is a physical effect that occurs with the same result regardless of whether the object is moving away from or toward the observer. This is both what the Lorentz transform predicts and what I have found, while not relying upon relativity theory, to be correct. In any case, you are presenting your ideas very well and I recognize they have received positive response from others here. Good luck.

James Putnam

Hi James,

it is good to hear from you. Thank you for your kind words of appreciation.

The specific question I asked was: does alteration in the way the light is received alter the object itself? By object itself I am referring to the substantial source of the manifestations seen by observers. That is the nourishing steak, made of atoms, using Professor Feynman's example. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

May I ask, what is it you consider is transformed in reality rather than mathematically IE what is the equivalent phenomenon in physics? Some choices for what is transformed 1.The substantial object, such as " Feynman's Steak" (that is the source of the sensory data received by an observer) 2. the potential sensory data in the environment 3. the relationship of the observer to potential sensory data in the environment 4. the seen output of the sensory data processing.

I would choose 3 which leads to 4. 3. is how a transformation physically occurs, a different viewpoint obtaining a different selection of potential sensory data and 4. is the outcome of the transformation. What is seen in both reference frames is manifestations, IE the outputs of sensory data processing as substantial source objects can not be directly seen, or so it seems to me, you may still wish to disagree.

I may have been wrong to equate Galilean relativity with the Object reality of things but it seems that at normal speeds and local distances there is little difference between where something is and where it is seen to be because the speed if light is so fast. However that is ignoring optical effects.

Since relativity and optics deal with the emission or reflection of light and how it is received and output of that, why aren't the two branches of physics combined, giving a complete depiction of relativity. The various relations of observers to potential sensory data in the environment and the outputs obtained, varying in "TEMPORAL ORIGIN" and in SCALE and GEOMETRY. For example there is the physical equivalent of foreshortening, used by artists to represent what is seen. The dimensions of an object's manifestation being shorter along the line of sight relative to across the line of sight Eye of the Beholder: Johannes Vermeer, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, and the Reinvention of Seeingand And clearly the more distant an object( the source) the smaller it ( the manifestation) appears to be.

Sorry -Anonymous replied on May. 18, 2015 @ 06:21 GMT, that was me, Georgina, I seem to be unable to stay logged in long enough to write a reply.

Georgina,

It was your second statement I responded to because it is unrelated to your question:

"As we are receiving light emitted or reflected from objects, does alteration in the way the light is received alter the object itself? The correct response to which will help clarify that the barn pole type paradoxes are about manifestations (Image reality) not actualized objects (Object reality)."

The answer to your question is No. That answer is unrelated to length contraction.

Length contraction occurs to objects such as the pole in the barn pole example. The pole shrinks in the direction of its velocity. That shrinkage occurs in the Lorentzian manner and not linearly. That shrinkage also is not dependent upon the position of an observer. The barn pole example is not a example of special relativity. The reason is because the barn is not in free space, but rather is stationary on the surface of a planet. There is no paradox because the barn is not moving relative to the surface of the planet.

The effect called 'length contraction', in the example, is unrelated to and unchanged if the observer is given a velocity relative to the surface of the planet. Doppler effects are not examples of length contraction. Doppler effects are dependent upon the direction of relative velocity, with respect to the pole, of the observer. The length contraction of the pole is independent of the direction of that velocity. It is independent of the observer's velocity, either with respect to the pole or the barn, regardless of the observer's direction or speed.

Here is an example of the a consequence of length contraction due to velocity relative to the surface of the planet. There is a wire with a constant current in it. The wire is stationary on the surface of the planet. The wire has the same number of negative charges as it does positive charges. It is electrically neutral. The electrons moving in the wire have a velocity with respect to the wire and to the surface of the planet. Because the electrons have this relative velocity, they experience length contraction. The wire does not and the observer does not and the planet does not, in this example, experience length contraction. Relativists can predict the existence of a magnetic field around the wire by a calculation that begins with length contraction. The magnetic field exerts a well defined force, based upon changes of velocity of a test particle having electric charge. That force is not the same as electric force. It is very different.

I find relativity theory to be obviously wrong. For this reason I have deliberately and repeatedly mentioned velocities with respect to the surface of the planet because those are what really matter for real effects in the barn pole example. In the case of the magnetic field example I do find that the magnetic field varies its strength due to a length contraction. My explanation is different from relativity theory. However, it doesn't matter because you are offering to explain the effects that are attributed to relativity theory. I mentioned that length contraction is independent of the direction of relative velocity. The effect known as time dilation is also independent of the direction of the relative velocity. In other words, it makes no change in the effects known as length contraction and time dilation whether an object is moving away from or toward an observer. The effects are the same in both cases.

James Putnam

Hi James,

Yes I agree the answer is no. In which case any alteration of the "thing " observed, is alteration of the manifestation, the output of the sensory data processing. By my reasoning, but you have a different observer independent ? understanding of the paradox.

As I understand it, the barn pole problem is about non simultaneity of events for different observer reference frames. Try this simple presentation.

The barn pole paradox :Non simultaneity illustrated with colour changes © Mark L. Irons

Quote" The hidden assumption in the apparent paradox is that when we envision "the pole", we imagine an actual pole. In our daily existence poles don't change from moment to moment, so our mental model of a pole is of something uniform, something always the same at every moment for all observers. Once we recognize and break that assumption, it becomes easier to comprehend how observers in different frames can disagree about an object's appearance." © Mark L. Irons, last updated 10 August 2007 I find this presentation easy to understand and have linked to it several times on this site. I'm not sure why you say "I find relativity theory to be obviously wrong." The above presentation does not appear obviously wrong to me but enlightening: )

As I see it each colour relates to a different time or iteration in the sequence of configurations of the Object universe; because the pole illustrated is going through a regular sequential colour change. The manifestations produced by each observer are constructed of data from different "temporal"origins ( Object universe configuration origins,IE different CO-data).The manifestations differ in colours and length. The same applies to both pole and barn. Changing from one observer perspective to the other does not alter the source object at all but alters the manifestation observed.

James forgive me for not addressing your reply directly. I know you dislike reading feedback containing half baked attempts to understand your work. There is a lot in there and I will have to think carefully about what you have said. Kind regards, Georgina

What is time to the brain ? Perception of time delation,FQXi Talk by David Eaglemen This is great. David Eagleman mentions the very different processing of different types of sensory data. Eg.Sound sensory data being processed more quickly than visual sensory data. He presents a number of different kinds of data input types that cause perceptual time "delation", including anything novel or looming, which presumably require more analysis than the familiar and non threatening. So the perceived time delay may relate to greater brain activity than the suppressed activity accompanying familiar stimuli. He mentions the neurological matching of sensory data occurring within 80ms resulting in perceptual synchronization of stimuli in the output reality.

Not only is there the Object reality of passage of time, the sequential change in configuration of the Object universe; and the effect of an observer or observers receiving different sensory data input with different Object universe configuration origins- giving space-time maps that are 'temporal 'amalgamations; there are also processing affects that can alter the temporal sequencing that would be output from data receipt time alone. This gives another type of emergent reality compared to the device such as a camera that does not think about relevance or have to compile sets of data from different stimuli that are synchronised in the output to give a credible causality "story'. Causality could have survival implications to a living organism, and there is an advantage to studying novel stimuli carefully which could be threats or resources that aid survival or reproductive success.

Therefore the Prime reality interface of a human being is qualitatively different from non living reality interfaces, that lack complex processing capabilities that further affect the space-time output Image reality.( That is subjective temporal experience, IE the content and duration of events within the experienced present in the case of a human's Image reality output ). It is likely that the complex stimuli processing of human beings is shared by other sentient higher organisms and perhaps even less complex organisms. The extent of "temporal adjustment", synchronization of stimuli and 'delation' within the animal kingdom would be interesting to investigate.

The higher level, biological affects, giving a sentient being's reality interface output, a further level of emergent reality, can be added to any simulation of conversion of source Object reality to Image reality via sensory data receipt alone, or including only a simple processing time equally applicably to all sensory data, as might apply to an inanimate device.

Georgina,

"I know you dislike reading feedback containing half baked attempts to understand your work."

No, I never had a problem with that.

"Yes I agree the answer is no. In which case any alteration of the "thing " observed, is alteration of the manifestation, the output of the sensory data processing. By my reasoning, but you have a different observer independent ? understanding of the paradox."

I may not understand your point. There can be alterations to either the pole or the barn that exist before reflected light leaves and is affected otherwise.

Relativity theory is wrong for many reasons that I have debated a long time mostly with Tom. So, I'll just stick with responding to the idea that: "...the barn pole problem is about non-simultaneity of events for different observer reference frames." I can offer an explanation for why relativists have not solved their paradox. Lets first see if I describe the problem satisfactorily:

There is a pole with a velocity aimed directly into a barn. The pole, when it is stationary with respect to the barn is too long to fit into the barn. The Lorentz transform for length-contraction predicts that when the pole has a sufficient magnitude of velocity, it shrinks enough to fit inside the barn as it passes through. There is a paradox that exists due to relativity theory allowing for the relative velocity of the pole to be applied in reverse for the barn. In that case it is the barn that shrinks instead of the pole. Relativity theory allows for them to both be true for the same event. As you pointed out, non-simultaneity is credited with explaining that the pole will both fit into the barn and not fit into the barn depending on which of the two has the relative velocity. Sometimes the wording is weak and it can seem that the relativists are speaking about appearances. However, they are speaking about physical changes to either the pole or the barn that occur independent of whatever may affect the light that is reflected away. Usually observers are included and their perspectives on what is occurring are given. For example, if the barn is said to have entrance and exit doors that will be closed simultaneously for an instant while the pole is in the barn, if it fits, there is offered the opposite perspective of one observer, traveling with the pole, who sees the doors not operating simultaneously. The observer perspectives are offered as proof that the two predictions of the Lorentz transform for length-contraction are both correct about what happens physically to the pole and the barn for the same single event.

My own description of the problem includes the barn being stationary on the surface of the Earth. I am not including that for this discussion. Please let me know your opinion of the description given above. Thank you.

James Putnam

James Putnam

OK James. I just don't want to upset you by having you think I'm misrepresenting your work by feeding back my misunderstandings.

James I think you have set out the paradox OK. However a few things to bear in mind. The Lorentz transformation that predicts the pole will fit is from the perspective of "Barney" at the barn only, not "Polly" with the pole. Its to do with reference frame not just speed. For "Polly" at the pole the barn appears to be moving and the pole stationary giving the appearance of shrinking of barn instead. From that reference frame but not the other, Barney's.

You wrote"Sometimes the wording is weak and it can seem that the relativists are speaking about appearances. However, they are speaking about physical changes to either the pole or the barn that occur independent of whatever may affect the light that is reflected away." If that is the case there is a paradox because a substantial Object can not be simultaneously short and long BUT from two different observer perspective the manifestations of the object can be different without paradox. Regarding the doors, there is no agreement about simultaneity from the two different reference frames. Barn pole © Mark L. Irons

Happy to hear your alternative explanation of the paradox as you have set it out.

I have in many posts pointed out that we never see substantial objects themselves. Always emergent reality outputs of EM data processing. The analogy can be given of a building observed by a near observer and a far observer; Each sees it as having a different height to the other. The substantial Object itself in Object reality does not change size at all how ever the observers look at it. Each observer receives a sub set of EM data from which their manifestation is fabricated and in this (house) case of varying size the visual angle gives the size of the object on the retina and consequently the image presented to the visual cortex.There is a widespread problem of not differentiating substantial objects made of atoms,and the emergent Image reality manifestation of an object. All are called by the name of the object. Swapping of observer perspective is not a problem as shown by the house size analogy above. Different observers see different things depending upon their relation to the substantial object ( that affects which sensory data is received to form the manifestation of the object that is seen.) As another analogy consider the perceived length of a pole like object seen head on and same pole seen from its side held horizontally in front of the observer standing midway between the ends. IMHO the paradox comes only from not differentiating object from emergent image. Non simultaneity of perceived events can account for both different perceived sizes of the objects (Images) and different reckoning of the opening and closing of the doors.

Georgina,

"OK James. I just don't want to upset you by having you think I'm misrepresenting your work by feeding back my misunderstandings"

I have never been upset by you or anyone else by feedback to me about my work. Do you want to color our past disagreement in your favor or do you want to discuss the barn-pole problem? I am interested in discussing only the barn-pole problem. Here is one more attempt at discussion.

"James I think you have set out the paradox OK. However a few things to bear in mind. The Lorentz transformation that predicts the pole will fit is from the perspective of "Barney" at the barn only, not "Polly" with the pole. Its to do with reference frame not just speed. For "Polly" at the pole the barn appears to be moving and the pole stationary giving the appearance of shrinking of barn instead. From that reference frame but not the other, Barney's."

The pole and the barn are sufficient for the problem to be resolved. Perspective is fine for discussion between observers, but observers are neither necessary nor functional in the barn-pole paradoxical problem. There is no need for a Barney nor a Polly for the purpose of learning about what happens mechanically. Relativists do have a need for a Barney or Polly for diversionary purposes. Is it your position that what a Barney or Polly sees or thinks they see affects the mechanical outcome of the pole-barn paradox? We need to agree what the problem is, otherwise any solution is irrelevant. My position is that there is a pole with an approaching velocity relative to a stationary barn. The question to be answered is: Is there a velocity at which the pole approaches that is sufficient, when substituted into the Lorentz transform equation for length-contraction, to allow an otherwise 'too-long' pole to fit within the length of the barn?

You wrote"Sometimes the wording is weak and it can seem that the relativists are speaking about appearances. However, they are speaking about physical changes to either the pole or the barn that occur independent of whatever may affect the light that is reflected away." If that is the case there is a paradox because a substantial Object can not be simultaneously short and long BUT from two different observer perspective the manifestations of the object can be different without paradox. Regarding the doors, there is no agreement about simultaneity from the two different reference frames.

Yes there is a paradox for relativists and the relativists' proposed solution fails.

James Putnam

James, ?: ) My intention was only to state up front that I don't intend to cause offense to you in this discussion and I feel hesitant to address your work for that reason. No ulterior motive or offense intended by my comments : )

You ask "Is it your position that what a Barney or Polly sees or thinks they see affects the mechanical outcome of the pole-barn paradox?" As I said a substantial object can not be simultaneously short and long BUT from two different observer perspectives the manifestations of the object that are seen can be different without paradox. I'm not sure what you mean by mechanical outcome of the paradox. The outcome is what it is said to be in the description of the paradox. If you mean what is happening to the pole object and barn object IE substantial objects made of atoms, then observer reference frame is not affecting those objects. Just like a substantial object house is not affected by an observer viewing it from a distance.

You haven't quoted me quoting you which makes it look like, according to you, I wrote what you wrote.For the record it was you who wrote Quote "Sometimes the wording is weak and it can seem that the relativists are speaking about appearances. However, they are speaking about physical changes to either the pole or the barn that occur independent of whatever may affect the light that is reflected away."

From what you have written it seems to me that 1. you do not consider the problem to be about observer reference frames; 2. do not accept that the non simultaneity of events that would be experienced by observers at each position is sufficient to describe what is occurring; 3.do not accept that the paradox is resolved if related to what is seen rather than substantial objects (my viewpoint) as you do not consider it to be about appearances. I don't agree with you but am happy to hear your resolution of the problem.I don't understand how the Lorentz transformation applies if not switching between different reference frames.Or will we be?

Georgina,

The problem I have interest in addressing is the problem of the pole-barn paradox and its solution as relativists understand it and solve it. There has to be agreement on the problem. Perhaps there are others who can present the problem as relativists understand it and solve it.

James Putnam

James,

If I may briefly interject, here...

While I address SR as the mechanics (mathematic mechanism) of measurement, there always exists the psychology of any individual encountering pondering what it says about reality. Much confusion arises, I think, from Eienstein's famous euphemism of riding on a beam of light and 'time stops'. uhhhh.... no. I mean if 'time' stops at light velocity, how can light continue to propagate at light velocity across space where time stops for no man? Here-in lies all the paradoxical psychologisms that plague modern relativity.

Let us dissect the Einsteinian euphemism. Starting with the old joke that the 'speed of time' is one second per second. Okay (...?). So if that is the universal rate, how do we know if it is that rate we ourselves experience? We don't. What is 'one second'? For looking closer we distinguish that for the Einsteinian euphemism to hold, it means that we track the change in rate of passage of time in relation to our velocity from the human experience of how much effort it takes to push a stone up the eternal hill, starting from rest and ever increasing our speed as we go higher up the hill. In short the euphemism rates the speed of times passage as 1 sec/sec @ rest; up to 0 sec/sec @ light velocity.

Where I find your 'A New Gamma' applicably interesting, is in looking at the Lorentzian in the reverse. That is, from light velocity dropping to ~relative rest. Mass is only a 'mass of energy' (energy en-masse) until a unit quantity specific to a unit volume is determined which exhibits inertia as a function of density in universal proportion to the total rest quantity. So gravitationally, the rate of passage of time would be 0 sec/sec at ~rest; and progress Lorentz fashion to 1 sec/sec @ light velocity. In a rest mass of particulate matter, the greatest density would exist in a core volume at constant density because time would not extend in relation to the space of that core volume, but as the distance increased from the core horizon, the density would decrease as a coeffeciency of greater space and increase of the rate of passage of time without the energy quantity extending spatially to infinity, but only to a limit minimum density where the rate of passage of time is 1 sec/sec.

Looking at it from that paradigm, SR makes better sense. At rest we measure mass, but at light velocity we measure energy. Taken literally, energy is mass existing at light velocity. And if density is a function of inherent velocity, a small enough quantity of mass does become accelerated to light velocity as EM because it ceases to be 'mass' as velocity transforms it to enegy, without the necessity theoretically to extend spatially in all directions to infinity. Hence, light is a unidirectional physical volumetric phenomenon. If I decide to produce a paper, I may well incorporate your extrapolation of (c)sqrt 1-(v^2.c^2) and cite your 'A New Gamma'. Thanks, but don't hold your breath. jrc

OOOPS, oh drat! Sorry James, I should have done a final proof-read, I had hit the period key instead of the slash. Your extrapolation of (c)sqrt 1-(v^2/c^2) jrc